buy or lease house

[pinsharp]

Is it better to own a house and lease land or lease house and land ?

[icebear]

You'll never own the land.

Arrange for a lease for 30 years on your house and make sure it's registered properly before 3 years into the lease or organize a Company to hold your property.

[JimmyGreaves]

It's better to own a house and own the land if you ask me

[STEVE G]

My advice would be to rent a house for a while until you really get to know how the place works and then decide if you want to buy, lease or whatever.
Renting can be reasonably cheap, so you're not going to waste too much money but you could avoid many pitfalls.

[JimmyGreaves]

My advice would be to rent a house for a while until you really get to know how the place works and then decide if you want to buy, lease or whatever.
Renting can be reasonably cheap, so you're not going to waste too much money but you could avoid many pitfalls.

Second that!

[pinsharp]

Thanks for the input. The issue is that I have already contracted to purchase a villa with a 30 year lease on the land. The owner has told me that there are advantages in leasing the house rather than owning it. I am inclined to think it is better to own the house. Any views on this ?

[TypicallyTropical]

The owner has told me that there are advantages in leasing the house rather than owning it.

The owner?! Do you really think he is representing your best interest?! He is representing himself!

[hhfarang]

Generally you pay the same price for either option and the lease is only legal for 30 years whereupon the lessor can reclaim your home (unless it's a mobile home that you can move to another piece of land ). That should make it simple enough to decide.

[Super Joe]

Edit: Removed my question about land and house split, as I missed your earlier post which already answers it.

SJ

[Darius31]

Thanks for the input. The issue is that I have already contracted to purchase a villa with a 30 year lease on the land. The owner has told me that there are advantages in leasing the house rather than owning it. I am inclined to think it is better to own the house. Any views on this ?

In this case leasing a house is only interesting if the lease is extremely low, which I haven't encountered at all in Thailand. So better to own the house and have a lease contract for the land. Make sure you have the contracts revised by an attorney. Think they charge between 3000-5000baht for a contract revision.

[crazy88]

Having leased several buildings here for residential and commercial use a few comments and thoughts.

All premises were leased on 5+5 year basis or a 3+3 year basis. 30 years is the maximum lease you can register at the land office and I cannot recall how long a lease you can have without registering.

All my leases contained conditions. Such as what I could use the premises for and what the landlords responsibilities were. Supply of amenities, maintenance etc. There were also a number of clauses regarding noise, rubbish, general lack of care that if broken could have me kicked out subject to correct legal proceedings. Any alteration of the premises needed express permission from the landlord. All stated that the building was to be handed back in the original condition. All involved either a deposit or key money followed by either annual or monthly payments up front. Had any of them asked me to pay 5 years, let alone 30 years! up front I would have politely told them to go fly a kite. Imagine in your own country you wished to lease (essentially rent) a house and you asked the owner what they wanted up front. "30 years in cash mate" Would you go for it? The legal paperwork would have to be 100% watertight with each parties responsibilities clearly defined and would have to do so with the acceptance of the fact that if I broke the contractual conditions my lease could be terminated. Just food for thought and I await the flak

Crazy 88

[malcolminthemiddle]

Had any of them asked me to pay 5 years, let alone 30 years! up front I would have politely told them to go fly a kite. Imagine in your own country you wished to lease (essentially rent) a house and you asked the owner what they wanted up front. "30 years in cash mate" Would you go for it?

The big difference here is that only the land is being leased. The Lessee should want a term as long as legally possible for the lease of the land on which the house he owns sits. Payment terms for the land lease are a different matter. Developers who are both the Lessor and the builder selling to non Thais demand 100% of the rent at the beginning of the lease. The alternative for a non Thai is to lease land on favourable terms such as monthly rent and then self build.

[crazy88]

I read It as the OP asking whether the house should also be leased rather than owned. Based on this post which the OP wrote.

"Thanks for the input. The issue is that I have already contracted to purchase a villa with a 30 year lease on the land. The owner has told me that there are advantages in leasing the house rather than owning it. I am inclined to think it is better to own the house. Any views on this ?"

Therefore the building appears a different entity to the land and not only the land is being leased.

Crazy 88

[malcolminthemiddle]

Yes I see. The OP has contradicted himself where he says.

The issue is that I have already contracted to purchase a villa with a 30 year lease on the land. The owner has told me that there are advantages in leasing the house rather than owning it.

Maybe the OP can clarify exactly what he has contracted to buy and what he has contracted to lease?

[pinsharp]

OK ... let me try again. I am about to complete the purchase of a villa. I am not Thai so I will have a 30 year lease on the land with provision for 2x more 30 year periods. I am being asked if I would prefer to OWN the house that is on the leased land or LEASE the house that is on the leased land